What has annoyed me many times is the logic failure in those that deny the validity of a blind test because ' I can clearly hear the difference sighted, but can't when tested blind, therefore the blind test is wrong.' There's too much stress in a blind test, (because I'm afraid I'll get it wrong and my credibility will suffer). Blind testing isn't how people use HiFi, I need weeks to decide which I prefer and so on.
If something is so bloody similar that it takes weeks to decide, even sighted, does it matter which? They're the same, just buy the prettiest.
S.
Abso-freaking-lutely. This is a point I have made many times in many contexts.
And I have learned it the hard way, over and over. Just one example: I owned a very nice, hand-made B&S Symphonie F tuba (the smaller tubas that I use mostly for chamber music), from the first generation of those instruments made in the GDR before unification. It was beautiful. But the dang fifth-valve branch was too short and the fingering patterns were too much different from what my hand wanted to do as a result. And it only had five valves, which was adequate for an F tuba but that sixth valve does provide some interesting capabilities.
Comes my way some years after buying that tuba: A newer six-valve version from the last generation of those instruments made right around the time of unification. It had nearly all of the best features, plus the sixth valve and a fifth-valve branch that was long enough. But it lacked the hand-work detailing of the earlier model. I played both for a couple of weeks. I lost sleep over it, and enlisted the opinion of far better players than myself who politely avoided saying the obvious, "it doesn't matter Rick, you suck on either one." My wife liked the older one because it was prettier (subtly but undeniably so) and it definitely had more historical interest. I thought I could detect a slightly greater singing quality with the older one, but then the newer one was easier to play because of the added valve and tubing.
Biases abound and from all directions.
After two weeks, one good friend blew away all the angst: If you can't decide after two weeks of going back and forth,
the difference just isn't that important. Choose one. The decision was easy after that: Playability, which directly impacts whether I can easily play the right pitch in tune, trumps ethereal qualities that I can't put my finger on.
This isn't like the larger sum of money I spent for my big B-flat tuba that I use for large ensembles. (Actually, for both my big tubas.) I played one note, heard what bounced down from the 20' ceiling in that room, and knew I would buy it. No angst, just figuring out how to put the money together. That was much more sensible: It's worth spending the money for a big effect that is obvious, but those are not the effects that require poetry. It may not be worth spending the money on subtleties so fine that we are afraid to subject them to controlled testing.
Do people need to spend money so badly that they will focus endlessly on fine effects while completely ignoring gross effects?
Yes.
Rick "not innocent of this self-delusional imperative" Denney